Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/135392
If Oprah can admit that there was something wrong with Wright's preaching methods, why can't Obama? She left two years ago, he's still in attendance.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/135392
If Oprah can admit that there was something wrong with Wright's preaching methods, why can't Obama? She left two years ago, he's still in attendance.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/135392
If Oprah can admit that there was something wrong with Wright's preaching methods, why can't Obama? She left two years ago, he's still in attendance.
No, read again. She left the church in 1986, and only visted a few times during the 90's. It said she hasn't been since the 90's.
Wright retired in the last year. Obama's been listening to his sermons for twenty years. Obama NOW claims he would have left if Wright hadn't retired. Funny...it took him twenty years to make that claim, AFTER Wright had retired.
Wright actually said it best, Obama is a politician. He'll say whatever it takes to win. Change you can believe in? Don't make me laugh.
Why don't you leave the Wright thing alone? Is that the only thing you have that can help McCain win? If it is, give it up.
I'm actually a huge Clinton supporter. I've voted Democratic my entire life. But if Obama wins this nomination, I will be voting for, rallying for, and hoping for a McCain Presidency.
Obama will ruin this country.
If you trust Clinton's judgment, and she knows both candidates personally, will her endorsement mean anything to you?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/135392
If Oprah can admit that there was something wrong with Wright's preaching methods, why can't Obama? She left two years ago, he's still in attendance.
Because Oprah doesn't agree with Wright.
Obama does.
These, of course, are followers. Altemeyer labeled these people "right-wing authoritarians" not because he was looking to target political conservatives, but rather because he was drawing broadly on the historical terms that identify those who openly submit to established authorities, and whether those authorities are political, economic or religious, those who submit to them are traditionally described as being on the right wing. As Altemeyer developed and refined his testing, however, it became apparent that those who tested as highly submissive to economic or religious authorities also proved to be hard-right political conservatives.
In addition to being especially submissive to established authority, Altemeyer's research revealed that those he calls right-wing authoritarians also show "general aggressiveness" towards others, when such behavior is "perceived to be sanctioned" by established authorities. Finally, these people are always highly compliant with the social conventions endorsed by society and established authorities. These basic traits, submissiveness to authority and conventionality, are the essence of those Altemeyer describes as right-wing authoritarians. If these traits are not present in some significant (albeit varying) degree, he does not consider the subject to be a right-wing authoritarian. However, these people can, and often do, consistently reveal they have many other interesting traits as well.
Based on Altemeyer's study, as well as those of other social psychologists, I prepared a list of the additional traits that these personalities, both men and women who test high as right-wing authoritarians, often evidence: highly religious, moderate to little education, trust untrustworthy authorities, prejudiced (particularly against homosexuals, women, and followers of religions other than their own), mean-spirited, narrow-minded, intolerant, bullying, zealous, dogmatic, uncritical toward their chosen authority, hypocritical, inconsistent and contradictory, prone to panic easily, highly self-righteous, moralistic, strict disciplinarian, severely punitive, demands loyalty and returns it, little self-awareness, usually politically and economically conservative/Republican.
Wrong, again. What you say about the Rev. Wright issue says more about you than Obama.
Intelligent adults can listen to differing and even conflicting viewpoints without a problem. Idiots and children cannot. Republican John Dean has explored the traits of social conservatives that explain why they differ from rational people on this issue. They have an entirely different reaction to authority figures (including preachers) than normal people. They are mentally incapable of understanding how an intelligent man like Obama can listen to Wright without agreeing with him, because this is foreign to the limited workings of their own minds.
If you have any appetite for self-reflection, read John Deans's article, Why Authoritarians Now Control the Republican Party: The Rise of Authoritarian Conservatism. Here are a few key passages:
In another post, you took me to task because I did not dispute your point sooner. yurt, yurt, yurt, . . . Am I safe in claiming that you agree with Dean's characterization of the right-wing extreme because you didn't challenge it?ad hominen...
yada, yada, yada, yada, . . .
In another post, you took me to task because I did not dispute your point sooner. yurt, yurt, yurt, . . . Am I safe in claiming that you agree with Dean's characterization of the right-wing extreme because you didn't challenge it?
